agriculture

Article

Assessment of the Impact of Small-Scale Irrigation on

Household Livelihood Improvement at Gubalafto
District, North Wollo, Ethiopia
Dereje Mengistie 1 and Desale Kidane 2, *
1
2

Department of Natural Resource Management, Samara University, P.O. Box 132, Samara, Ethiopia;
derejemengistie5@gmail.com
Department of Geography and Environmental studies, Samara University, P.O. Box 132, Samara, Ethiopia;
Correspondence: kidanedesu@gmail.com; Tel.: +251-91-312-1286

Academic Editor: Sanzidur Rahman

Received: 3 March 2016; Accepted: 3 June 2016; Published: 24 June 2016

Abstract: Ethiopia has been highly affected by drought and climate-related hazards, and millions
of people have been left without sustenance every year. To increase productivity and diversify the
livelihood scenarios as an option, small-scale irrigation (SSI) schemes have been introduced.This study
assessed the impact of SSI in achieving household livelihood improvement and the major challenges
of SSI practices in the Gubalafto district. Questionnaires, interviews, focus group discussions, and
participant observation data collection tools were used. Proportionally, a total of 374 respondents
were included.The collected data was analyzed by descriptive statistics. The application of SSI
improved the annual income of irrigator households from 1978.12 to 10,099 Ethiopian Birr (ETB)
(1 USD 20 ETB) before and after using irrigation with a standard deviation of 1534.32 compared
to non-irrigators who have an annual average income of 3146.75 ETB with a standard deviation of
1838, respectively. It proved that 32.1% of irrigators increased their frequency of production due to
irrigation. Shortage of water, access to improved seeds, marketing, and increment of farm input costs
have been hindering SSI practices. Awareness campaigns for non-irrigators and adequate supervision
for the irrigators by development agents (DAs) and district officials are important to improve the
livelihood of farmers.
Keywords: small-scale irrigation; livelihood improvement; impact; Gubalafto district; Ethiopia

1. Introduction
In Africa, agriculture forms the backbone of most of the continents economies, providing
about 60% of all employment [1,2]. During the last decade, per capita agricultural production has
not kept pace with population growth [3,4]. Irrigation is a very old practice, dating back to the
earliest civilizations of humankind. It served as one of the key drivers behind growth in agricultural
productivity, increasing household income and alleviation of rural poverty, thereby highlighting the
various ways that irrigation can impact poverty [57].To meet food requirements by 2020, the Food and
Agriculture Organization for United Nations (FAO) [8] estimated that food production from irrigated
areas will need to increase from 35% in 1995 to 45% in 2020. This indicates that access to water for
irrigation will become an issue of global concern and competition in the future, especially in the arid
and semi-arid regions of the world.
Irrigation use in Ethiopia dates back several centuries, and continues to be an integral part
of Ethiopian agriculture. In Ethiopia, modern irrigation began in the 1950s through private and
government-owned schemes in the middle Awash Valley where big sugar, fruit and cotton state farms
are found [1,2,9,10]. In Ethiopia, irrigation development is a priority for agricultural transformation,

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27; doi:10.3390/agriculture6030027

www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

2 of 22

but poor practices of irrigation management discourage efforts to improve livelihoods, and expose
people and the environment to risks [2,11]. Irrigation projects have been failing mainly because
of insufficient participation by beneficiaries and insecurity of land tenure. Socioeconomic, cultural,
religious and gender-related issues pose a problem to full and equal participation by beneficiaries [2,10].
Moreover, the poor performance of irrigation in the country, systematic and holistic evaluation of
irrigation management in general and of small-scale irrigation in particular is lacking [1215]. The main
purpose of irrigation development in the 1960s was to provide industrial crops for agro-industries
in the country. The agro-industries were established by foreign investors and had the objective of
increasing export earnings.
In most parts of Ethiopia, production from rain-fed agriculture has been highly fluctuating,
corresponding to the amount and distribution of rainfall [16,17]. When there is too little rainfall with
uneven distribution, crop failure is unavoidable. In spite of all this, agricultural growth still contributes
to the improvement of food security conditions and household empowerment in the country. However,
as it now stands, droughts occur far too often and food security in all its extent could not be sustained.
Irrigation would have to be introduced in a significant way for a sustainable attainment of food security
and rural transformation at the national level [14,16].
Agriculture is comprises the principal land use and remains the major source of livelihood for
the rural poor people in Ethiopia [1,2,10,18]. Irrigation is one of the possible means of feeding the
rapidly growing population. Consequently, numerous modern and large-scale irrigation schemes have
been established in the country. As a result, there is a growing interest in small-scale irrigation (SSI)
development for food as well as for rural development. The development of SSI schemes managed
and controlled by farmers is seen as a viable and practical alternative to large-scale conventional
schemes. SSI in the Ethiopian context refers to smallholder farms with the size of scheme amounting
to less than 200 ha. SSI schemes can be adapted easily to suit local socioeconomic and environmental
conditions [18].
The adoption of sustainable water management and irrigation development programs, as well as
strong linkages with private sectors and markets with institutional support are essential; these could
provide plenty of opportunities in terms of a coping strategy for climatic change, poverty reduction,
wealth creation, growth of economy and reducing the environmental impact of agricultural expansion
to marginal land under rapid population growth [14,19].
SSI development is one of the components of water resource development. Ethiopia has large
water potentials that could be used for a wide range of irrigation development programs. It has
12 major river basins with an annual water runoff volume of more than 122 billion cubic meters [11].
In addition, the groundwater potential is estimated to be more than 2.6 billion cubic meters [12,14].
Currently, about 3% to 5% of the irrigable land is irrigated while the irrigation potential has been
estimated to be about 4.3 million hectares of arable land [13,14] Irrigated agriculture is becoming
increasingly important in meeting the demands of food security, employment, rural transformation
and poverty reduction. For Ethiopia, increasing agricultural productivity, enabling households to
generate more income, increasing their resilience as well as transforming their livelihoods stands out
as the most pressing agenda now and for the coming decades. SSI is a policy priority in Ethiopia for
rural poverty alleviation, climate change adaptation and growth [20,21].
Like the national scenarios, in large parts of Gubalafto district, agriculture is also increasingly
susceptible to climatic hazards. The principal feature of rainfall in most parts of the district is seasonal
character, poor distribution and variability from year to year (1030 to 990 mm) [22]. Yasin [22] also
noted that erratic distribution of rainfall has been the major climatic factor affecting crop yields in the
study areas. Thus, designing SSI schemes is necessary and could bring social, cultural and economic
importance to the beneficiaries. This depicts the fact that if we maximize our efforts to utilize the
untapped water resources for irrigation development, we will be able to improve the household
livelihood and overcome the challenges of food insecurity within the shortest time possible [13,14].

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

3 of 22

Since the 1970s, recurrent drought, unreliable and poor distribution characters of rainfall has
resulted in crop and pasture failure. These have in turn brought about food shortage and famine,
particularly
in the northern part of the country including the study district. In response to these,
Agriculture2016,6,x
3of21
irrigation practices have been introduced since the 1970s.Currently, there are four modern and
traditionalirrigationschemeswithatotalof534and191hectaresofthelandirrigatedbymodern
231
traditional irrigation schemes with a total of 534 and 191 hectares of the land irrigated by modern
andtraditionalirrigationsystems,respectively.However,thereareverylimitedstudiesfocusingon
and
traditional irrigation systems, respectively. However, there are very limited studies focusing
thethe
performance
of of
SSISSI
schemes.
ToTo
date,
there
are
on
on
performance
schemes.
date,
there
areno
norecent
recentstudies
studieson
on the
the impact
impact of
of SSI
SSI on
householdslivelihooddevelopmentinnorthernEthiopia,particularinthestudieddistrict.Moreover,
households
livelihood development in northern Ethiopia, particular in the studied district. Moreover,
previousdetailedfieldinvestigationsabouttheroleoftheSSIshavefocusedmainlyonthelivelihood
previous
detailed field investigations about the role of the SSIs have focused mainly on the livelihood
improvementsofirrigators,andthemainproblemsfacedbyirrigatorsduringSSIoperationsarethus
improvements
of irrigators, and the main problems faced by irrigators during SSI operations are thus
required.Afterdetailedinvestigationsoftheimpactofthepractices,recommendationsforimproving
required.
After detailed investigations of the impact of the practices, recommendations for improving
thesystem,especiallyregardinghowSSIpracticesarelikelytobesuccessfulandsustainable,willbe
the
system, especially regarding how SSI practices are likely to be successful and sustainable, will be
drawn.Therefore,theobjectivesofthestudywere:(i)toassessthecontributionofSSIimplementation
drawn.
Therefore, the objectives of the study were: (i) to assess the contribution of SSI implementation
forhousehold
household
livelihood
improvement;
to identify
thechallenges
major challenges
faced
the
for
livelihood
improvement;
(ii) to(ii)
identify
the major
faced during
the during
application
applicationofSSIpracticesintheselectedSSIschemes.

of
SSI practices in the selected SSI schemes.
Conceptual
Framework of the Study
ConceptualFrameworkoftheStudy
In
Inorder
orderto
toenhance
enhancesmall-scale
smallscaleirrigation
irrigationschemes
schemesto
toimprove
improvehouseholds
householdslivelihood,
livelihood, many
many
factors
must
be
considered:
high
water
and
labour
supply,
provision
of
credit
services
and
agricultural
factors must be considered: high water and labour supply, provision of credit services and
chemicals,
good
irrigation
infrastructure
management
practices,
support
of government
and
agricultural
chemicals,
good
irrigation and
infrastructure
and
management
practices,
support
of
development
agents
(DAs)
are
all
very
essential.
Therefore,
by
using
these
inputs,
we
can
increase
governmentanddevelopmentagents(DAs)areallveryessential.Therefore,byusingtheseinputs,
rural
peoples
household
livelihood
diversification,
agriculturaldiversification,
intensification, productivity,
we can
increase
ruralincomes,
peoples
household
incomes, livelihood
agricultural
employment
opportunities, income variance and resilience to risk, and participation in community
intensification,productivity,employmentopportunities,incomevarianceandresiliencetorisk,and
decisions.
Therefore, keeping other variables constant, all these and other outputs of SSI developments
participationincommunitydecisions.Therefore,keepingothervariablesconstant,alltheseandother
combined
have the capacity to achieve livelihood development in rural areas, thereby reducing the
outputsofSSIdevelopmentscombinedhavethecapacitytoachievelivelihooddevelopmentinrural
present
chronicreducing
food insecurity
problem
in particular
and poverty
in general
(Figureand
1). poverty
Smith [23]
areas, thereby
the present
chronic
food insecurity
problem
in particular
in
supports
this
concept
as
illustrated
in
Figure
1:
general(Figure1).Smith[23]supportsthisconceptasillustratedinFigure1:

Figure1.Conceptualframeworkmodifiedfrom[23].
Figure
1. Conceptual framework modified from [23].

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27
Agriculture2016,6,x

4 of 22
4of21

2.MaterialsandMethod
2. Materials and Method
2.1. Description of the Study Area
2.1.DescriptionoftheStudyArea
2.1.1. General Characteristics of the Study Sites
2.1.1.GeneralCharacteristicsoftheStudySites
The study was conducted in Gubalafto district, which is found in the Amhara National Regional
ThestudywasconductedinGubalaftodistrict,whichisfoundintheAmharaNationalRegional
State, North Wollo, Ethiopia (Figure 2).Geographically, the study site is located at 11 341 5411 Nand
State,NorthWollo,Ethiopia(Figure2).Geographically,thestudysiteislocatedat113454Nand
11 581 5911 N, 39 121 0911 E and 39 451 5811 E. It is situated 521 km from Addis Ababa and 380 km from
115859N,391209Eand394558E.Itissituated521kmfromAddisAbabaand380kmfrom
the regional capital, Bahir Dar. The altitude of the district ranges from 1379 to 3200 meter above sea
theregionalcapital,BahirDar.Thealtitudeofthedistrictrangesfrom1379to3200meterabovesea
level. The annual rainfall is erratic in nature, and varies widely. There exist a number of mountains
level.Theannualrainfalliserraticinnature,andvarieswidely.Thereexistanumberofmountains
that affect
affect the
inin
thethe
district.
Accordingly,
the the
mean
annual
rainfall
ranges
from
that
thedistribution
distributionofofrainfall
rainfall
district.
Accordingly,
mean
annual
rainfall
ranges
1030 to
990 to
mm
[24]. According
to the daily
air daily
temperature
data collected
Sirinka
Agriculture
from
1030
990mm
[24]. According
to the
air temperature
datafrom
collected
from
Sirinka
Research
Centre
located
20km
south
of
the
study
sites,
the
mean
monthly
temperature
ranges
between
AgricultureResearchCentrelocated20kmsouthofthestudysites,themeanmonthlytemperature
21 C and 25 C, respectively. The rainfall is seasonal in nature, has poor distribution across areas and
rangesbetween21Cand25C,respectively.Therainfallisseasonalinnature,haspoordistribution
is variable from year to year (Figure 3).It is bimodal in nature; there is a short rainy season, locally
acrossareasandisvariablefromyeartoyear(Figure3).Itisbimodalinnature;thereisashortrainy
known as belg, which occurs between February and April, and a long rainy season, the kiremit,
season,locallyknownasbelg,whichoccursbetweenFebruaryandApril,andalongrainyseason,
which occurs between June and September. In most cases, the highland areas/the Dega zone are
thekiremit,whichoccursbetweenJuneandSeptember.Inmostcases,thehighlandareas/theDega
mainly
dependent
on belg rain,
thewhereas
Woinadega
and Kolla areas
meher
rainare
dependent
for
zone
are
mainly dependent
onwhereas
belg rain,
the Woinadega
andare
Kolla
areas
meher rain
crop
production.
dependentforcropproduction.

Figure2.Locationmapofthestudysites.
Figure 2. Location map of the study sites.

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27
Agriculture2016,6,x
Agriculture2016,6,x

5 of 22
5of21
5of21

Figure3.RainfallmapofGubalaftodistrict.
Figure
3. Rainfall map of Gubalafto district.
Figure3.RainfallmapofGubalaftodistrict.

2.1.2.LandUseandSoilTypes
2.1.2.
Land Use and Soil Types
2.1.2.LandUseandSoilTypes
Theland
land
use
pattern
of
the
district
includes
arable
land
(34.1%),
grazing
land
(17.9%),forest
forest
The
use
pattern
of
the
district
includes
arable
land
(34.1%),
grazing
land
(17.9%),
The
land
use
pattern
of
the
district
includes
arable
land
(34.1%),
grazing
land
(17.9%),
forest
(27.1%),andwaterbodies(6%),rockyland(5%)andothers(9.9%),respectively.Atthedistrictlevel,
(27.1%),
and water bodies (6%), rocky land (5%) and others (9.9%), respectively. At the district level, the
(27.1%),andwaterbodies(6%),rockyland(5%)andothers(9.9%),respectively.Atthedistrictlevel,
theaveragelandholdingsizeforafarmerhasbeenestimatedtobe0.78hectaresrangingfrom0.4
average
land-holding size for a farmer has been estimated to be 0.78 hectares ranging from 0.4 hectares
theaveragelandholdingsizeforafarmerhasbeenestimatedtobe0.78hectaresrangingfrom0.4
hectaresinthehighlandareasto1.93hectaresinthelowlandareasofthedistrict.Inthedistrict,there
in
the
highland
areas to 1.93 hectares in the lowland areas of the district. In the district, there are
hectaresinthehighlandareasto1.93hectaresinthelowlandareasofthedistrict.Inthedistrict,there
areaboutfourmodernand231traditionalirrigationschemes.Currently,about534and191hectares
about
four modern and 231 traditional irrigation schemes. Currently, about 534 and 191 hectares
areaboutfourmodernand231traditionalirrigationschemes.Currently,about534and191hectares
of
the
land
are
irrigated
by
modern
and
traditionalirrigationsystems,
respectively.In
Inthisstudy,
thisstudy,
of
the
land
are
irrigated
by
modern
and
traditional
irrigation systems, respectively.
In
this
study,
of
the
land
are
irrigated
by
modern
and
traditionalirrigationsystems,
respectively.
modern
irrigation
is
viewed
as
an
irrigation
system
which
applies
a
motorized
pump
for
ground
modern
irrigation
is
viewed
as
an
irrigation
system
which
applies
a
motorized
pump
for
ground
modern irrigation is viewed as an irrigation system which applies a motorized pump for ground
waterextraction;haslinedcanals;andusesdrip,furrow,andsprinklerirrigationsystemsontheir
water
extraction; has lined canals; and uses drip, furrow, and sprinkler irrigation systems on their
waterextraction;haslinedcanals;andusesdrip,furrow,andsprinklerirrigationsystemsontheir
commandareas.Modernirrigationemploysothertechnologiesenablingavailablewatertobeused
command
areas. Modern irrigation employs other technologies enabling available water to be used
commandareas.Modernirrigationemploysothertechnologiesenablingavailablewatertobeused
moreefficiently.Thewaterapplicationefficiencyismorethan80%.Traditionalirrigation,however,
more
efficiently. The water application efficiency is more than 80%.Traditional irrigation, however,
moreefficiently.Thewaterapplicationefficiencyismorethan80%.Traditionalirrigation,however,
meanssimplydivertingwaterfromriversandirrigatingthecommandareausingfloodsirrigation
means
simply diverting water from rivers and irrigating the command area using floods irrigation
meanssimplydivertingwaterfromriversandirrigatingthecommandareausingfloodsirrigation
systemswithouttechnologicalapplication.Thewaterapplicationefficiency,conveyanceefficiency
systems
without technological application. The water application efficiency, conveyance efficiency and
systemswithouttechnologicalapplication.Thewaterapplicationefficiency,conveyanceefficiency
andothermetricsareverypoor.Thesoiltypesofthedistrictincludesandyclay(46%),clayloam
other
metrics are very poor. The soil types of the district include sandy clay (46%), clay-loam-brown
andothermetricsareverypoor.Thesoiltypesofthedistrictincludesandyclay(46%),clayloam
brown(39%),sandysoil(8%)andsiltsoil(7%),respectively(Figure4).
(39%),
sandy soil (8%) and silt soil (7%), respectively (Figure 4).
brown(39%),sandysoil(8%)andsiltsoil(7%),respectively(Figure4).

Figure4.Soilmapofthestudydistrict.
Figure4.Soilmapofthestudydistrict.
Figure
4. Soil map of the study district.

Thedistrict
districtis
isdominated
dominatedwith
withLithic
LithicLeptosols
Leptosols(92.2%),
(92.2%),Eutric
EutricCambisols
Cambisols(3.9%)
(3.9%)and
andEutric
Eutric
The
Leptosols(3.5%).Sugarcane,potato,tomato,cabbage,banana,orange,lemon,onion,greenpepper,
Leptosols(3.5%).Sugarcane,potato,tomato,cabbage,banana,orange,lemon,onion,greenpepper,
chatandcoffeearethemajorcropscultivatedusingirrigation.
chatandcoffeearethemajorcropscultivatedusingirrigation.

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

6 of 22

The district is dominated with Lithic Leptosols (92.2%), Eutric Cambisols (3.9%) and Eutric
Leptosols (3.5%). Sugarcane, potato, tomato, cabbage, banana, orange, lemon, onion, green pepper,
chat and coffee are the major crops cultivated using irrigation.
2.2. Research Methods
2.2.1. Research Design
The study employed cross-sectional data collection tools because it is better and more effective
for obtaining information about the current status or the immediate past of the case under study. It is
also appropriate and suitable to use data collection tools such as questionnaires, interviews, focus
group discussions (FGD), field observations, and document analyses. Many researchers have used
cross-sectional research design (e.g., [25,26]). The data collection work was undertaken in 2014.Both
quantitative (questionnaire, secondary documents) and qualitative data collection instruments (FGD,
key informant interviews (KI), and field observations) have been used.
2.2.2. Sampling Techniques and Sample Size Determination
Based on population concentration in the schemes, the type of SSI they used, and the
recommendation of the Agricultural and Rural Development Experts of the district, three SSI
schemes namely, Sanka (Woyeneyie and Geshober), Gedober (Al-Meda), and Jarsa (Aba-kolsha),
were purposively selected. The household heads from both irrigator and non-irrigator groups were
selected from the respective schemes. From each irrigation scheme and peasant association, sample
households were proportionally selected. In this regard, the sample populations were categorized into
irrigators and non-irrigators and they were sorted alphabetically to use random tables and then the
appropriate sample size was determined.
For every selected sample size of irrigation scheme beneficiaries (irrigators), proportional sample
sizes of non-irrigators were selected. The total irrigator households found in the three schemes
(Sanka, Gedober and Jarsa) were 1856, 1065 and 576, respectively. Additionally, the total non-irrigator
households found in three schemes include 1335, 800 and 228, respectively. Therefore, in order to select
the sample household, the researchers used the Formula (1) of Taro [27];
n

N
1 ` N peq2

(1)

where: n = the number of required sample of each irrigation scheme (sample size); N = total households
of each irrigation scheme (population size); e = confidence level (0.05 (95%) level of precision); and
N = total households of the three irrigation schemes.
The required sample households of each irrigation scheme (n) were, calculated using the
Formula (2):
N1pnq
n1
(2)
N
Proportional sampling technique was used to develop the overall sample size. Accordingly,
223 irrigators and 151 non-irrigators with a total of 374 sample households were taken, respectively
(Table 1).
2.2.3. Data Collection Instruments
A conventional household survey was used to collect quantitative information. In this regard,
carefully designed open and close-ended questionnaires consisting of interrelated issues were
administered by trained college student enumerators under the supervision of the researchers and
the development agents of the respective schemes. Sample household heads were the unit of
analysis from whom quantitative information was collected. To convey the questions effectively
to the rural interviewees, the questionnaires were translated into the local language (Amharic).

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

7 of 22

For the sake of checking the reliability, a pre-test was administered for a few randomly selected
households in the studied district. Based on the feedback obtained, some possible adjustments and
modifications were made. Then, the questionnaires were administered to the sample irrigator and
non-irrigator households.
Table 1. Sample household heads taken from irrigators and non-irrigators.
Sample Irrigators

Sample SSI
Schemes

Male (M)

Sanka
Jarsa
Gedober

81
28
40

37
9
28

Total

149

74

Sample Non-Irrigators
Male (M)

Female (F)

Total (T)

Total Sample
HHs

118
37
68

60
10
38

25
5
13

85
15
51

203
52
119

223

108

43

151

374

Female(F) Total (T)

HHs: household heads.

In order to cull the most pertinent information, transect walks with the researchers, DAs
(development agents), model irrigator farmers, water use committees and peasant association leaders
across each village of irrigation schemes for personal observations were conducted. During the transect
walks, informal discussions with households and elderly people have been conducted to gather useful
and detailed information which would have been difficult to collect through the questionnaire.
Focus group discussions (FGD) with development agents, district agricultural and rural
development office irrigation experts and irrigating and non-irrigating farmers to gather qualitative
data were conducted. Initially, FGD were held with irrigator model farmers who directly engaged in
small-scale irrigation activities. The second FGD was made with development agents. After thorough
discussions with farmers and development agents, another focus group discussion with district
agricultural and rural development office irrigation experts were undertaken.
Individuals who were considered as knowledgeable and rich in experiences about irrigation
activities and the socioeconomic conditions of the community were identified and data was collected
using a semi-structured questionnaire. Key informant interviews (KI) with elderly people, model
farmers, water use committee members, development agents, and zonal irrigation experts were
also conducted.
2.2.4. Methods of Data Analysis
The data generated through questionnaires, key informant interviews, transect walks and formal
and informal discussions were analyzed and interpreted qualitatively and quantitatively. The data
analysis was carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS, Version-19, SPSS Inc.,
New York, NY, USA) software. The quantitative data were first recorded and organized in a Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet. Simple descriptive statistical methods such as average, percentage, standard
deviation, and frequency distribution were used. The qualitative data analysis was used to see the
relationships between the variables and they were then analyzed through systematically organizing
the information and giving attention to local situations, opinions, perceptions and preferences of
households and institutions operating in the district. In order to see the socioeconomic impact of SSI
between irrigator and non-irrigator households of the study area, comparative analyses were made.
In order to characterize the selected SSI systems, the major challenges faced in relation to irrigation
systems and the reason why non-irrigating households do not irrigate were extracted using structured
checklists. To show to what extent or degree these major challenges affect households not involved in
irrigation activities were done using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

8 of 22

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
As can be seen in Table 2, males predominate in the activity (68.7%). The fact that there are more
men than women in irrigation activities corroborates similar findings of other studies, such as [4,15,22],
where subsistence rural food production is found to be an activity usually practiced by males. From the
interviewed household heads, the minimum and maximum ages of the respondents are 19 and 79 with
the average and standard deviation of 44.45 and 13.87 years, respectively.Education plays a key role
in the households decision to adopt technology. It creates awareness and encourages innovation and
invention. The study revealed that 33.2% of the users and 22.5% of the non-users of SSI are illiterate
(Table 2).
Table 2. Respondents sex, education, house types, household size and marital status.
Characteristics of HHs

Irrigating HHs

Non-Irrigating HHs

Total Sample HHs

Sex

No

Percent

No

Percent

No

Percent

Male
Female
Total

149
74
223

39.8
19.8
59.6

108
43
151

28.9
11.5
40

257
117
374

68.7
31.3
100

124
62
37
223

33.2
16.6
9.9
59.6

89
30
32
151

23.2
8
9.1
40.4

208
92
69
374

56.4
24.6
19
100

154
2
39
28
223

41.2%
0.5
10.4
7.5
59.4

93
5
37
16
151

24.9
1.4
9.8
4.3
39.3

247
7
76
44
374

66.1
1.9
20.2
11.8
100

12 persons

1.6

11

17

4.6

34

57

15.2

49

13.1

106

28.3

56

93

24.9

57

15.3

150

40.2

78

60

16

32

8.6

92

24.6

>8

1.8

0.6

2.4

Total

223

59.6

151

40.4

374

100

Education
Illiterate
Read and write
High school and above
Total
Marital status
Married
Unmarried
Divorced
Widowed
Total
Household Size

Irrigation Status
House types of HHs

Response

Irrigators

Non-Irrigators

Male

Male

Male

Male

Total

Grass roofed

Frequency
%

31
8.3

21
5.6

67
17.9

27
7.2

146
39

Corrugated iron roofed

Frequency
%

118
31.6

53
14.2

41
11

16
4.3

228
61

Total

Frequency
%

149
39.8

74
19.8

108
28.9

43
11.5

374
100

About 56.4% of the respondents had not attended school and are illiterate, whereas only24.6%
can read and write. Those who had completed an elementary level of education made up only 16.8%.

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

9 of 22

An interesting point one may obtain from a careful observation of Table 2 is that there is a remarkable
difference in level of education within irrigating and non-irrigating households. About 33.1% of the
irrigators are illiterate compared with only 23.2% of the non-irrigators. Hence, it can be concluded that a
low level of education is correlated with the non-irrigator category. It is believed that educated farmers
are more aware of irrigations technological inputs, utilizations, and risks. Our findings confirmed
that education has an impact on the involvement of farmers on irrigation practices. However, it is
also important to note that SSI is practiced by people with different educational levels ranging from
analphabets to those who attended university.
More than 66.1% of the respondents are married. The proportion of divorced household heads
takes the second position (20.2%) followed by widowed (11.2%) and single households (1.9%),
respectively. It is also crucial to note that 41.2% of the users and 24.9% of the non-users of SSI
are married.
3.1.1. Household Size and Types of Housing
The number of persons in a household influences the amount of labor the household can expend
on irrigation agriculture and the amount of food consumed. As illustrated in Table 2, 40.2% of the
households have 56 persons per household. In addition, 24.9% and 15.3% irrigator and non-irrigator
households have the same family size, respectively.
About 4.6% of the total sampled households have a family size of 12 persons per household and
2.4% of the total sampled households have a family size of more than eight persons per household.
There was statistically significant difference of 0.043 at a 95% degree of freedom between irrigator and
non-irrigator sampled households with respect to family size.
As can be seen in Table 2, 45.8% of irrigator households have corrugated iron-roofed houses and
the remaining 13.9% of irrigator households have grass-roofed houses. While 25.1% non-irrigator
households have grass-roofed houses, the remaining 15.3% of households have corrugated iron-roofed
houses. The types of housing are an indicator of improving the well-being of rural households.
In rural Ethiopia, most of the houses are grass-roofed, but wealthier households have a corrugated
iron roof [15,22,28,29]. Therefore, we can say that using irrigation is potentially correlated to having a
corrugated iron-roofed house.
3.1.2. Livestock Income of the Respondents
Next to crop production, livestock is the most important productive asset. It plays a role
in religious and cultural ceremonies, is a source of power for ploughing, and serves as source of
prestige [15]. In line with this particular reference, livestock is also considered a saved asset used
during the periods of food shortage.
According to the data collected from KI and FGD, because water is accessible from the irrigation
canals, irrigator farmers have high animal feed potential both from irrigated and rain-based cropping
and animals do not need to be sold to get food (Table 3). Therefore, each irrigator household has
high livestock numbers with relatively good quality and they have the potential for a higher income
from the sector. There are also households who practice intensive farming (dairy and fattening),
especially in the Woinyie scheme with the special support of the professionals of Sirinka Agricultural
and Research Center. However, unlike irrigators, non-irrigators have insufficient animal feed resources.
The FGD further indicated that due to absence of enough food, and because what is there is only from
rain-fed cropping, the livestock of the non-irrigators are necessarily sold to get food. Therefore, each
non-irrigator household had a small livestock population with poor quality.

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

10 of 22

Table 3. Total livestock population and current cost of SSI schemes in ETB.
Geshober
No

Number

Cost in
(1000)

**I

*NI

NI

61
72
23
38
52

7
10
4
8
7

278.1
331.2
525
570
390

294
4.89
7.5
12.7
54.6

7
3
46

12

24.7
19.5
115

109
78

34
24

***TLU

489

Average

11

Kind of
Animal

Jarsa

Cost in
(1000)

Number

Cost in
(1000)

NI

NI

**I

*NI

NI

134
139
108
112
99

8
28
4
29
21

753
555.8
194.8
224.2
74.7

117.9
109.2
7
56.5
14.7

135
51
39
29
32

10
8
3
5
7

688.5
198.9
77.5
43.5
245

430
29.5
5.9
7.6
4.9

63
34
33
22
26

28.8

11
5
119

1
14

53.9
29
356.5

4.2
39.9

7
4
71

22

32.2
26
22.7

65.4

104
76.5

32.3
21.6

388
247

87
62

349.2
246.8

84.8
62.5

403
233

88
22

40.2
23.4

87
22.5

106

109.7

142.7

1362

264

2838

496.8

1004

165

1915

2494

101.9

18

38.4

70

15

28.1

Number

Number
**I

Total
Number

Cost in
(1000)

Total Cost
(1000)

*NI

NI

5
8
2
6
5

252
134.3
67.3
35.2
20.2

20
32.2
3.95
9.3
3.6

433
350
216
249
249

109.1
698
208.2
20.35
93.6

2
1
39

7.55
6.4
117.8

11.7

28
13
327

612.7
4
48.1

87
37

15
3

88.4
37.5

16.2
3.3

1211
706

5819
352.3

265

344

48

767

101.7

3811.4

5.2

20.7

6.68

Pack animal
Horse
Mule
Donkey

Gedober

Cattle
Ox
Cow
Bull
Heifer
Calf

Woyeneyie

Others
Sheep
Got

NB: *NI = Non-irrigator; **I = Irrigators; ***TLU = Total Livestock Unit; (NB: 1 USD 20 ETB).

livestocknumberswithrelativelygoodqualityandtheyhavethepotentialforahigherincomefrom
thesector.Therearealsohouseholdswhopracticeintensivefarming(dairyandfattening),especially
in the Woinyie scheme with the special support of the professionals of Sirinka Agricultural and
ResearchCenter.However,unlikeirrigators,nonirrigatorshaveinsufficientanimalfeedresources.
TheFGDfurtherindicatedthatduetoabsenceofenoughfood,andbecausewhatisthereisonlyfrom
Agriculture 2016, 6, 27
11 of 22
rainfedcropping,thelivestockofthenonirrigatorsarenecessarilysoldtogetfood.Therefore,each
nonirrigatorhouseholdhadasmalllivestockpopulationwithpoorquality.
3.1.3. Off-Farm Income of the Respondents
3.1.3.OffFarmIncomeoftheRespondents
Off-farm incomes are also important for improving the purchasing power of rural households
Offfarmincomesarealsoimportantforimprovingthepurchasingpowerofruralhouseholds
and addressing food security in Ethiopia. It has also described as petty trading and has become
andaddressingfoodsecurityinEthiopia.Ithasalsodescribedaspettytradingandhasbecomean
an important off-farm occupation for many poor farmers who have less access to land and water for
importantofffarmoccupationformanypoorfarmerswhohavelessaccesstolandandwaterfor
irrigation [18]. Similarly, petty/local trading is one of the sources of off-farm income in the study areas
irrigation[18].Similarly,petty/localtradingisoneofthesourcesofofffarmincomeinthestudyareas
(Figure 5).

(Figure5).

Figure5.HHsofffarmincome.
Figure 5. HHs off-farm income.

For instance, there is sugarcane, potato and tomato trading in Sanka and Woldiya/Adagomarket
centers, and sugarcane and tomatoes are often transported to Dessie, Kobo and Dilb towns and used
as another income source (Figure 6C,D). Other sources of off-farm income include: renting out of
the idle or extra oxen; getting involved in daily labor works and self-employment activities, such as
handicrafts, selling wood and wood products, or selling local drinks (Tela, Areki, etc.); transporting
people and goods by using carts/garies; salary from temporary or permanent employment; remittance;
and/or income from mills and shops. The data for off-farm income of respondents were collected on a
daily and monthly basis and converted to estimate annual average income.
The result revealed that the annual average off-farm incomes for sampled male and female
irrigator households of the Geshober SSI scheme were found to be 1887.26 (1 USD 20 ETB) and
1500 ETB, respectively, whereas the annual average off-farm incomes of non-irrigator male and female
household were 938.89 and 490 ETB, respectively. When we see the annual average off-farm incomes
from the SSI scheme perspective, male and female irrigator households of the Woyeneyie SSI scheme
were found to be 995 and zero ETB, respectively. The non-irrigator male and female households of
this SSI scheme were also 56.86 and 87.50 ETB, respectively. The annual average off-farm incomes
of male and female irrigator households of Gedober/Al-meda scheme were 1138.75 and 26.78 ETB,
respectively. Moreover, the average off-farm incomes of the non-irrigator male and female households
of this scheme were found to be 87.37 and 134.62 ETB, respectively (Figure 5).
In addition to this, the average off-farm income of male and female irrigator households of
Jarsa were 1300 and zero ETB, respectively, whereas the annual off-farm incomes of male and female
non-irrigators of this scheme were 150 and 290 ETB, respectively. From these figures, it is safe to
conclude that in the Gedober and Jarsa schemes, the involvement of female-headed households in
off-farm activities were found to be lower than male-headed households. The reason behind this could
be cultural factors, though this requires further investigation.

Inadditiontothis,theaverageofffarmincomeofmaleandfemaleirrigatorhouseholdsofJarsa
were1300andzeroETB,respectively,whereastheannualofffarmincomesofmaleandfemalenon
irrigatorsofthisschemewere150and290ETB,respectively.Fromthesefigures,itissafetoconclude
that in the GedoberandJarsaschemes, the involvement offemaleheaded households in offfarm
Agriculture
6, 27
12 ofbe
22
activities2016,
were
found to be lower than maleheaded households. The reason behind this could
culturalfactors,thoughthisrequiresfurtherinvestigation.

Figure6.6.Water
Water
seepage
in Woyeneyie
the Woyeneyie
(A)
and Gedober
scheme
(B);loss
Seepage
loss in the
Figure
seepage
in the
(A) and
Gedober
scheme (B);
Seepage
in the traditionally
traditionallybuiltirrigationcanalconstructedbybeneficiaryfarmersthemselvesinSanka(C);and
built irrigation canal constructed by beneficiary farmers themselves in Sanka (C); and overtopping on
overtoppingonthemaincanalinSankastraditionalirrigationsystem(D),respectively.
the
main canal in Sankas traditional irrigation system (D), respectively.

The Impact of Small-Scale Irrigation

3.2.
3.2.1. Annual Average Income and Costs of the Respondents
The current income of the non-irrigator households of the study area ranges from 400 to 9500 ETB
with an average income of 3146.76 ETB with a standard deviation of 1838, respectively (Table 4).
Hence, in order to anticipate further analysis, the variability of distribution of the income was also
assessed by examining the values of the standard deviation.
Table 4. Annual average income and cost of the non-irrigator HHs and annual average income of HHs
before and after using irrigation in ETB (1 USD 20 ETB).
N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Standard Deviation

Current income of the

non-irrigator households

151

400

9500

3146.75

1838

Current cost of the

non-irrigator households

151

200

10,000

2905.13

1481.09

Length of irrigation practice

(in years)

223

22

9.2511

4.13

Household income before irrigation

223

70

8000

1978.12

1534.32

Current income (after irrigation)

223

1500

60,000

10,099

7865.59

Current Cost-Income Relation

Source: Field Survey, March 2014.

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

13 of 22

The irrigator households started using irrigation at different times, but the average starting year
was found to be 9.3 years ago. The minimum and maximum years of the households while starting
irrigation were 3 and 22 years, respectively with a standard deviation of 4.13 years. The findings
also revealed that the irrigator households income before using irrigation ranged from 70 to 8000 ETB.
The annual average income of irrigator HHs was 1978.12ETB with a standard deviation of 1534.32,
respectively, whereas the households annual average incomes after using irrigation ranges from 1500
to 60,000 ETB with a standard deviation of 7865.59, and the annual average income of the irrigator
households was found to be 10,099.05 ETB. Therefore, there is a greater variability between households
income before and after using irrigation in the study areas. This confirms that using irrigation has
a great role in improving the income of the irrigators than the households that abstained rain-fed
farming. However, these figures are without considering the inflation rates of the country.
The value for inflation, annual average consumer prices (%) in Ethiopia was 8.14 as of 2010
(Table 5).
Table 5. The trend of Ethiopias annual inflation rate consumer prices (%).
Years

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Total

Mean

Inflation Rate (%)

3.26

11.61

12.31

17.24

44.39

8.47

8.14

121.7

13.5

Source: CIA World Fact Book (2011) [30], * indicate no data, unless otherwise noted, this information is accurate
as of 9 January 2014.

Over the past 44 years, this indicator reached a maximum value of 44.39 in 2008 and a minimum
value of 9.81 in 1986 [31]. By using this concept as a benchmark, the current annual average income of
the irrigator households was calculated. Based on the computation, the average annual income before
and after using irrigation were calculated as 1978.12 and 10,099.05 ETB with a standard deviation
of 9.3, respectively. However, to know whether irrigation has impacted increasing average annual
income levels of the irrigator households or not, it is better to consider the inflation rate of the country.
As a result of this, the nine-year (2004 to 2012) average consumer price inflation rate of Ethiopia was
found to be 13.5% (Formula (3)).Therefore:
10,099.05 ETB x 13.5%
100

1, 363.37 ETB
10, 099.05 1363.37 8, 735.68 ETB

(3)

We can now compare the income of irrigators before and after using irrigation. The income of
households before using irrigation was 1978.12 ETB and is much less than that of the net income of the
households after using irrigation, 8735.68. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that using irrigation has
improved the income levels of the irrigator households of the study area.
Results revealed that the cost of the households before using irrigation ranges from 30 to 6000 ETB
with average annual cost of 1657 ETB, whereas the costs after using irrigation ranges from 400 to
25,000 ETB with average annual cost of 4265.7 ETB. Hence, the standard deviations of the cost of
the households before and after using irrigation are 1051 and 3193.16 ETB, respectively (Table 6).
From this, one can understand that there is a great variation of costs of irrigator households before
and after using irrigation. However, this figure is shown without considering the current inflation rate
of the country. We thus compare the costs of households before and after irrigation use by considering
the inflation rate shown below (Formula (4)):
Net cost

4265.7pETBq 13.5%
575.9 ETB
100

(4)

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

14 of 22

Table 6. Annual average costs of HHs before and after irrigation in ETB.

Cost of the HHs before using irrigation

Cost of the household after using irrigation

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Standard Deviation

223
223

30
400

6000
25,000

1657
4265.7

1051
3193

Source: Field Survey, March 2014, hint: N stands for number of irrigator respondents.

Therefore, we can compare the costs before and after irrigation by adding the net cost from the
cost of before irrigation. Thus, 1657 ETB + 575.87 ETB = 2232.86 ETB. This implies that even though
using irrigation has a major role in improving the livelihood scenarios of the user households, it also
has potential to increase the expenses/costs of the households.
Unlike rain-based farming, SSI is a capital and labor-intensive type of farming because the success
of irrigation is highly dependent on the different inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and
laborers. Similar findings have been reported by many authors [3137].
3.2.2. Employment Opportunity
Based on various findings [3842], irrigation and rain-fed agriculture requires a diverse labor
force both in quantity and technical quality. As can be seen in Table 7, for various purposes such as
land preparation, weeding, adding of chemicals, watering, harvesting and transporting and storing of
the product somewhere in different seasons, most of the irrigating farmers in the study sites employed
different laborers at different levels of wages.
As the result shows, only from January 2013 to March 2014, male and female irrigator households
of Geshober SSI employed on average three to five daily local laborers for 2.3 and 2.3 days by 158.7
and 156.5 ETB, respectively, for different agricultural activities in different seasons. Similarly, sampled
irrigator households of Woyeneyie SSI have employed on average 3 and 2 daily laborers for 4.2 and
3.6 total days by 136.8 and 92.08 ETB, respectively. Similar results have been observed in all the
SSI schemes. Therefore, it is safe to say SSI is not only used for enhancing household livelihood
diversification but it also creates job opportunities for a large segment of poor households in the
study areas.
3.2.3. Livelihood Development
SSI has multi-dimensional impacts on the livelihood development of the rural people [43,44].
In this regard, an attempt was made to assess whether the irrigating farmers had been aware of the
changes in their mode of life or not. Directly or indirectly, SSI has positive impact on food security,
asset ownership and well-being of rural farm households; there are clear increases in agricultural
production through diversification and intensification of crops grown, household income, sources of
animal feed, human health improvements, and asset ownership.
As seen in Table 8, 66% of the total irrigator respondents responded that using SSI contributes
significantly to the rise in household income. Similarly, 41% of the total irrigator respondents responded
that irrigation is a key to increasing agricultural production. Moreover, 33% of the irrigator respondents
stated that use of irrigation is also important for the diversification of crops grown in their plot of
land. Use of SSI is essential to the growth of different kinds of crops, vegetables, fruits and woodlots in
their plots of intensively irrigated land and, they can therefore easily increase product quality as well
as quantity.

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

15 of 22

Table 7. Labor demand in the SSI schemes (NB: 1 USD 20 ETB), Sanka (Geshober and Woyeneyie).
Irrigation Schemes
Geshober
Types Work

Total Days of
Employment

Woyeneyie

Total Wage
(ETB)

Total Days of
Employment

Gedober

Total Wage
(ETB)

Total Days of
Employment

Jarsa

Total Wage
(ETB)

Total Days of
Employment

Total Wage
(ETB)

Land preparation
Planting
Weeding
Adding of chemicals
Watering
Harvest
Transporting and storing

31
2
16
12
7
3
1

15
3
2
4
0
6
0

2580
100
980
470
310
330
150

990
310
180
155
0
400
0

111
0
28
7
58
2
4

33
0
5
2
34
0
8

3925
0
870
30
1635
160
220

1200
0
125
100
615
0
170

26
12
7
9
26
8
9

27
3
4
7
10
8
8

2560
680
650
900
1070
1315
1460

1360
315
425
270
100
100
1165

19
2
9
9
40
5
3

14
4
5
0
10
0
8

1525
350
300
230
500
320
630

695
160
200
0
300
0
480

Total

72

30

4920

2035

210

82

6840

2210

97

67

8635

3735

87

41

3855

1835

Average

2.3

2.3

158.7

156.5

4.2

3.6

136.8

92.1

2.4

2.4

215.9

133.4

3.1

4.6

137.7

203.9

Source: own survey 2016. M: male; F: female.

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

16 of 22

Table 8. Response of HHs on livelihood development (NB: 1 USD 20 ETB).

Sampled Irrigator Households of the Study Area
Choices

Rank

1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Total

Diversification
of Crops
Grown

Increased
Agricultural
Production

Increased
Household
Income

Increase
Employment
Opportunity

Income
Variance and
Resilience
to Risk

Increase
Participation in
the Community
Decisions

%
8
9
33
33
15
2
100

%
12
41
24
18
4
1
100

66
21
9
3
0.5
0.5
100

%
0.5
12
8.5
19
47
13
100

%
11
21
24
20
16
8
100

%
0.4
1
2
5
19.6
72
100

Source: Field Survey March 2014. The higher the number is, the more important it is.

Agricultural intensification through the practice of irrigation could be considered the best strategy
for poverty reduction and promotion of sustainable rural livelihoods [4548]. Therefore, in connection
with this particular reference, the irrigation user households in the study area have the opportunity to
diversify their livelihood scenario. Furthermore, as explained by Kidane et al. [2], crop intensification,
diversification, and market-oriented production make food available and affordable for the poor and
rich alike. Percentages of 47 and 72 of the irrigator households also responded that irrigation has the
potential to increase employment opportunities to the nearby poor people and increase participation in
different community decisions of the irrigator societies of the study area, respectively. Similar findings
have been reported by [1,3,10,4951] in studies conducted in the large-scale Tendaho irrigation project.
3.3. Major Problems Encountered
Although it is never free from problems, SSI has immense potential to improve the incomes of poor
rural households in developing countries like Ethiopia [10,15,19,52,53]. Unfortunately, the FGD with
model farmers (Figure 7) and the KI of households indicated that SSIs benefits are often accompanied
by multi-dimensional problems with different degrees of severity (Figure 6). The problems of SSI
development of the study area range from individual households biased perception to institutional
arrangements of the concerned bodies. The major problems that respondents faced in the study area are
those related to water shortages, lack of improved seeds, crop disease, weeding problems, increment
of input costs, water logging, and absence/low support from DAs.
About 48% of the irrigator households responded that their major problem is increment of input
costs such as pesticides, insecticides and fertilizes. The use of inputs influences household income
from crop production. In this study area, input cost increments and unavailability of the inputs when
required by the farmers are the main problems. Secondly, 51% of the respondents responded that
there was a water shortage problem due to the continuous drought and dry spells has declined the
volume of the Gimbora River (Figures 8 and 9).
Thirdly, 50.22% of the respondents responded as there was also a problem of shortage of
better quality seeds. The availability of better quality and sufficient seed supply when required
by farmers determines the quality and quantity of the products produced. As concluded by different
researchers [3,4,6,7,5458], seed multiplication and the distribution of improved genetics is a critical
element of the drive for improved productivity. In the selected schemes, there was a problem of supply
of better quality seeds at the right time.

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27
Agriculture2016,6,x

17 of 22
17of21

Figure 7. Photo graphs showing group discussion with the beneficiary households of Gedober
irrigationscheme(AandB)March2014

About48%oftheirrigatorhouseholdsrespondedthattheirmajorproblemisincrementofinput
costssuchaspesticides,insecticidesandfertilizes.Theuseofinputsinfluenceshouseholdincome
fromcropproduction.Inthisstudyarea,inputcostincrementsandunavailabilityoftheinputswhen
requiredbythefarmersarethemainproblems.Secondly,51%oftherespondentsrespondedthat
therewasawatershortageproblemduetothecontinuousdroughtanddryspellshasdeclinedthe
volumeoftheGimboraRiver(Figures8and9).
Thirdly,50.22%oftherespondentsrespondedastherewasalsoaproblemofshortageofbetter
qualityseeds.Theavailabilityofbetterqualityandsufficientseedsupplywhenrequiredbyfarmers

determinesthequalityandquantityoftheproductsproduced.Asconcludedbydifferentresearchers
[3,4,6,7,5458],seedmultiplicationandthedistributionofimprovedgeneticsisacriticalelementof
Figure
graphs
showing
group
discussion
with the
beneficiary
households
of Gedober
Figure7.7.Photo
Photo
graphs
showing
group
discussion
with
the beneficiary
households
ofirrigation
Gedober
thedriveforimprovedproductivity.Intheselectedschemes,therewasaproblemofsupplyofbetter
scheme
(A and B) March 2014.
irrigationscheme(AandB)March2014
qualityseedsattherighttime.
About48%oftheirrigatorhouseholdsrespondedthattheirmajorproblemisincrementofinput
costssuchaspesticides,insecticidesandfertilizes.Theuseofinputsinfluenceshouseholdincome
fromcropproduction.Inthisstudyarea,inputcostincrementsandunavailabilityoftheinputswhen
requiredbythefarmersarethemainproblems.Secondly,51%oftherespondentsrespondedthat
therewasawatershortageproblemduetothecontinuousdroughtanddryspellshasdeclinedthe
volumeoftheGimboraRiver(Figures8and9).
Thirdly,50.22%oftherespondentsrespondedastherewasalsoaproblemofshortageofbetter
qualityseeds.Theavailabilityofbetterqualityandsufficientseedsupplywhenrequiredbyfarmers
determinesthequalityandquantityoftheproductsproduced.Asconcludedbydifferentresearchers
[3,4,6,7,5458],seedmultiplicationandthedistributionofimprovedgeneticsisacriticalelementof
thedriveforimprovedproductivity.Intheselectedschemes,therewasaproblemofsupplyofbetter
qualityseedsattherighttime.

Agriculture2016,6,x

18of21

Figure8.Photosshowingwiltedsugarcanecropduetowatershortage(A),andfarmerslookingfor

Figure 8. Photos showing wilted sugarcane crop due to water shortage (A), and farmers looking for
ofwatershortageinthestudyareaswastheabsenceofalinedcanal.Throughallthecoursesofthe
watertoirrigatetheirfield(B).
water to irrigate their field (B).
divertedriver,thewaterbecomesloosebecauseofunlinedcanalconstruction.

Basedontherespondentscomments(30.5%),seepagewasanotherprobleminthestudysites.
Eventhoughwatershortagesaffectedirrigation,inthemainirrigationcannelsofthedivertedriver,
therewasalsoaseepageproblem.Therewasnostandardizedprogramandnoplanstoirrigateeach
cultivatedcrop.Irrigationwaterusedependsonlyonspatiallocationofthefarmplot;itdoesnot
consider the amount of water required for the type of cultivated crop, time interval of water
applicationandthesizeofeachplotforirrigation.AscanbeseeninFigure6,oneofthemaincauses

Figure8.Photosshowingwiltedsugarcanecropduetowatershortage(A),andfarmerslookingfor
watertoirrigatetheirfield(B).

Figure
9. Photos showing different irrigated crops (A and B), and farmers selling sugarcane and
Basedontherespondentscomments(30.5%),seepagewasanotherprobleminthestudysites.
Figure
9. Photos showing different irrigated crops (A and B), and farmers selling sugarcane and potato
potatoatalocalmarket(CandD),respectively
Eventhoughwatershortagesaffectedirrigation,inthemainirrigationcannelsofthedivertedriver,
at a local market (C and D), respectively.

therewasalsoaseepageproblem.Therewasnostandardizedprogramandnoplanstoirrigateeach
ProblemsRelatedtoMarketingofProducts
cultivatedcrop.Irrigationwaterusedependsonlyonspatiallocationofthefarmplot;itdoesnot
consider
the amount of water required for the type of cultivated crop, time interval of water
Poormarketaccessisthemajorfactorthatlimitstradeinteractionbetweenthelivelihoodand
applicationandthesizeofeachplotforirrigation.AscanbeseeninFigure6,oneofthemaincauses
externalmarkets.Poorroadsmostofthemwithonlydryweathersurfacesandtheremotelocation
ofmuchoftheNorthWollozoneseverelyrestricttheflowofgoodsinandout.Aslocalinhabitants

consume
almost all local agricultural products, the major markets for local grain are the district
centres within the zone (Figure 9 C,D). The farmers of the study sites suffered from different
challengesincluding:transportation,distancefromthemarket,lowbargainingpower,andlowprices

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

18 of 22

Based on the respondents comments (30.5%), seepage was another problem in the study sites.
Even though water shortages affected irrigation, in the main irrigation cannels of the diverted river,
there was also a seepage problem. There was no standardized program and no plans to irrigate each
cultivated crop. Irrigation water use depends only on spatial location of the farm plot; it does not
consider the amount of water required for the type of cultivated crop, time interval of water application
and the size of each plot for irrigation. As can be seen in Figure 6, one of the main causes of water
shortage in the study areas was the absence of a lined canal. Through all the courses of the diverted
river, the water becomes loose because of unlined canal construction.
Problems Related to Marketing of Products
Poor market access is the major factor that limits trade interaction between the livelihood
and external markets. Poor roads most of them with only dry weather surfaces and the remote
location of much of the North Wollo zone severely restrict the flow of goods in and out. As local
inhabitants consume almost all local agricultural products, the major markets for local grain are the
district centres within the zone (Figure 9C,D). The farmers of the study sites suffered from different
challenges including: transportation, distance from the market, low bargaining power, and low prices
of agricultural inputs.
About 31% and 27.3% of irrigator and non-irrigator households, respectively, responded that,
in marketing their products, there are transportation problems (Table 9). Moreover, 8.9% and 6.5%
of irrigators and non-irrigators responded that their place of residence is too far from the market
center. Few respondents (irrigators (10.2%) and non-irrigators (2.4%)) relayed that there has been low
bargaining power of demanders of the products. About 6.7% and 3.2% of irrigators and non-irrigators
who responded explained that there is a problem of low prices of agricultural products.
Table 9. Households response to market-related problems.
Irrigation Status
Problems

Response

Irrigator

Non-Irrigator

Total

Transportation

Frequency
Percent

80
21.4

36
9.6

72
19.3

30
8

218
58.3

Distance from market

Frequency
Percent

25
6.7

8
2.1

17
4.5

8
2.1

58
15.5

Low bargaining power

Frequency
Percent

28
7.5

10
2.7

6
1.6

3
0.8

47
12.6

Low price of agricultural products

Frequency
Percent

10
2.7

15
4.0

10
2.7

2
0.5

37
9.9

Others

Frequency
Percent

6
1.6

5
1.3

3
0.8

0
0

14
3.7

Total

Frequency
Percent

149
39.8

74
19.8

108
28.9

43
11.5

374
100

Source: Field Survey, March 2014. M: male; F: female.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Small-scale irrigation (SSI), both directly and in-directly, has a great impact on enhancing farmers
livelihoods through different dimensions, such as diversification of crops grown, as well as increased
agricultural production, household income, employment opportunity and participation in community
decisions. It was proved that the sampled irrigator households annual average income has improved.
Therefore, using irrigation has an impact on improving the income levels of the irrigator households
of the study area, ultimately affecting the irrigator community. The increment of input cost, shortage

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

19 of 22

of irrigation water, and absence of transportation were found to be the major challenges of SSI. It was
found that non-irrigator farmers are not in a position to utilize the advantages of SSI as they are not
aware of it. The district Agricultural Development Office should develop a campaign to propagate the
advantages of the SSI system to the farmers through development agents; by setting up farmer training
centers on improved agronomic practices, crop protection aspects, irrigation practices, and product
marketing; and by offering a credit service to allow rapid progress in the introduction of technologies
and farming practices, price bargaining power and profitability of SSI schemes.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank farmers, DAs, district agriculture office workers, and all
those who contributed during data collection in the field.
Author Contributions: Dereje Mengiste performed the research design, data collection, and data analysis part
and Desale Kidane performed the whole write up, data analysis and interpretation and manuscript preparation
parts of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1.

2.

3.
4.
5.
6.

7.
8.
9.
10.

11.
12.

13.

Kidane, D.; Mekonnen, A.; Teketay, D. An assessment of land tenure system and conflict resolution. Tendaho
irrigation project case study lower Awash basin, Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the High Level Policy Forum,
Semera, Ethiopia, 67 March 2014; Afar National Regional State, United Nations Development Programme
Ethiopia Country Office: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2015.
Kidane, D.; Mekonnen, A.; Teketay, D. Contributions of Tendaho Irrigation Project to the improvement
of livelihood of Agro pastoralists in the Lower Awash Basin, Northeastern Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Res.
Innov. Foresight 2014, 6, 119.
Belay, S.; Beyene, F. Small-scale irrigation and household income linkage: Evidence from Deder district,
Ethiopia. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 8, 44414451.
Tafesse, M. Small-Scale Irrigation for Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa; The ACP-EU Technical Centre for
Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2003.
Dananto, M.U.; Alemu, E. Irrigation water management in small scale irrigation schemes: The case of the
Ethiopian rift valley lake basin. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 2014, 1, 515.
Taffesse, N. The Role of Irrigation Development in Enhancing Household Food Security: A Case Study of
Three Small-scale Irrigation Schemes in Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region. Masters Thesis,
Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, July 2002.
Teshome, W. Irrigation Practices, State Intervention and Farmers Life-worlds in Drought Prone Tigray,
Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia, July 2003.
Food and Agriculture Organization. Socio-Economic Impact of Smallholder Irrigation Development in
Zimbabwe: Case Studies of Ten Irrigation Scheme. FAO: Harare, Zimbabwe, 2000.
Food and Agriculture Organization. Smallholder Irrigation Technology: Prospects for Sub-Saharan Africa; IPTRID
Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2001.
Mekonnen, A.; Kidane, D.; Teketay, D. Analysis of pastoralists adaptation to climate change and variability
in the dry land areas of Ethiopia Afar national regional state lower Awash basin. In Proceedings of the
High Level Policy Forum, Semera, Ethiopia, 67 March 2014; Afar National Regional State, United Nations
Development Programme Ethiopia Country Office: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2015.
Kidane, D. A critical review of integrated river basin management in the upper Blue Nile river basin: The case
of Ethiopia. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 2015. [CrossRef]
Awulachew, S.B.; Merrey, D.; van Koopen, B.; Kamara, A. Roles, constraints and opportunities of
small-scale irrigation and water harvesting in Ethiopian agricultural development: Assessment of existing
situation. In Proceedings of the ILRI Workshop, Colombo, Srilanka, 1416 March 2010; International Water
Management Institute (IWMI): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2010.
Awulachew, S.B.; Yilma, A.D.; Loulseged, M.; Loiskandl, W.; Ayana, M.; Alamirew, T. Water Resources and
Irrigation Development in Ethiopia; International Water Management Institute (IWMI): Colombo, Sri Lanka,
2007; p. 66.

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

14.

15.
16.

17.

18.

19.
20.
21.

22.

23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

29.
30.
31.

32.

33.
34.

20 of 22

Awulachew, S.B.; Merrey, D.J.; Kamara, A.B.; van Koppen, B.; de Vries, F.P.; Boelee, E.; Makombe, G.
Experiences and Opportunities for Promoting Small-Scale/Micro Irrigation and Rainwater Harvesting for Food
Security in Ethiopia; International Water Management Institute: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2005.
Kebede, G. The Impact of Selected Small-Scale Irrigation Schemes on Household Income and the Likelihood
of Poverty in the Lake Tana Basin of Ethiopia. Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2011.
Kidane, D.; Temesgen, M.; Abdelkadir, A. Effect of winged sub-soiler and traditional tillage integrated with
Fanya Juu on selected soil physico-chemical and soil water properties in the north western highlands of
Ethiopia. East Afr. J. Sci. 2012, 6, 2132.
Kidane, D. Conservation tillage implementation under rain-fed agriculture: Implication for soil fertility,
green water management, soil loss and grain yield in the Ethiopian Highlands. Int. J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 4,
268280.
Cosmas, H.S. Changes in the Upland Irrigation System and Implications for Rural Poverty Alleviation:
A Case of the Ndiwa Irrigation System, West Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Research on Poverty
Alleviation (REPOA): Tanzania, Tanzania, 2005.
Awulachew, S.B.; Merrey, D.J. Assessment of Small Scale Irrigation and Water Harvesting in Ethiopian Agricultural
Development; International Water Management Institute (IWMI): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2008.
Ministry of Water Resources. Climate Change National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) of Ethiopia;
Ministry of Water Resources and National Meteorological Agency: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007.
Ministry of Finance and Economic Developmen (MoFED). Ethiopia: Building on Progress. A Plan for Accelerated
and Sustained Development to End Poverty (2005/62009/10); Ministry of Finance and Economic Development:
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2006.
Yasin, S.A. Small-scale Irrigation and Household Food Security: A Case Study of Three Irrigation Schemes
in Gubalafto Woreda of North Wollo Zone, Amhararegion. Masters Thesis, Addis Ababa University,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, June 2002.
Smith, L. Assessment of the contribution of irrigation to poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods.
Water Resour. Dev. 2004, 20, 243257. [CrossRef]
Lemma, E. Land Use Land Cover Dynamics in Post-resettlement Areas Using Cellular Automata Model:
The Case of Gubalafto Woreda. Masters Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, June 2010.
Kahn, R.S.; Wise, H.P.; Kennedy, P.B.; Kawachi, I. The state income inequality, household income, and
maternal mental and physical health. BMJ 2000. [CrossRef]
Rani, M.; Bonu, S.; Jha, P.; Nguyen, S.N.; Jamioum, L. Tobacco use in India: Prevalence and predictors of
smoking and chewing in a national cross-sectional household survey. Tob. Control 2003. [CrossRef]
Taro, Y. Statistics, an Introductory Analysis, 2nd ed.; New York University: New York, NY, USA, 1967.
Abraham, B.G.; Nata, T.; Bheemalingeswara, K.; Mokennen, H. Suitability of groundwater quality for
irrigation: A case study on hand dug wells in Hantebet Catchment, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. J. Am. Sci.
2011, 7, 191199.
Gebremeskel, G.H.; Kebede, A.K. Irrigation in Ethiopia: A review. Acad. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 3, 264269.
CIA. World Factbook Download 2011. Available online: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/
download/download-2011/ (accessed on 21 June 2016).
Rockstrm, J.; Karlberg, L.; Wani, S.P.; Barron, J.; Hatibu, N.; Oweis, T.; Bruggeman, A.; Farahani, J.; Qiang, Z.
Managing water in rainfed agriculture: The need for a paradigm shift. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 543550.
[CrossRef]
Oni, S.A.; Maliwichi, L.L.; Obadire, O.S. Assessing the contribution of smallholder irrigation to household
food security, in comparison to dry land farming in Vhembe district of Limpopo province, South Africa.
Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 18, 21882197.
Mohammed, S. Development and challenges of bakolori irrigation Project in Sokoto State, Nigeria. Nord. J.
Afr. Stud. 2002, 11, 411430.
Lipton, M.; Litchfield, J. Preliminary Review of the Impact of Irrigation on Poverty, with Special Emphasis on Asia;
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2003.

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

35.
36.

37.

38.
39.

40.
41.
42.

43.

44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.

53.
54.

55.

21 of 22

Kassahun, D. Impacts of climate change on Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the 2nd Green Forum Conference,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 31 October2 November 2007.
Kaur, N.; Getnet, M.; Shimelis, B.; Tesfaye, Z.; Syoum, G.; Atnafu, E. Adapting to Climate Change in the
Water Sector. Assessing the Effectiveness of Planned Adaptation Interventions in Reducing Local Level
Vulnerability. RiPPLE: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2010.
Kamara, A.B.; van Koppen, B.; Magingxa, L. Economic viability of small-scal irrigation systems in the context
of state withdrawal: The Arabie Scheme in the Northern Province of South Africa. Phys. Chem. Earth 2002,
27, 815823. [CrossRef]
Aseyehegn, K.; Yirga, C.; Rajan, S. Effect of small-scale irrigation on the income of rural farm households:
The case of Laelay Maichew district, central Tigray, Ethiopia. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 7, 4357.
Jana, S.K. Sustainable small scale irrigation experiment in the dry zones: A case study on Happa (small
tank) model in the state of West Bengal, India. In Proceedings of the APN Conference on Innovation
and Sustainability Transitions in Asia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11 January 2011; MPRA: Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 2011.
Haile, T. Impact of Irrigation Development on Poverty Reduction in Northern Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis,
National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland, June 2008.
Gebremedhin, B.; Peden, D. Policies and Institutions to Enhance the Impact of Irrigation Development in
Mixed Crop-Livestock. MoWR/EARO/IWMI/ILRI Workshop: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2002.
Fanadzo, M.; Chiduza, C.; Mnkeni, P.N.S. An overview of small holder irrigation schemes in South Africa:
Relationship between farmer crop management practices and performance. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 5,
35143523.
Tilahun, H.; Paulos, D. Results to date and future plan of research on irrigation and its impact. In Impact of
Irrigation on Poverty and Environment; International Water Management Institute (IWMI): Colombo, Sri Lanka,
2004.
Tucker, J.; Yirgu, L. Small-Scale Irrigation in the Ethiopian Highlands: What Potential for Poverty Reduction
and Climate Adaptation. RiPPLE: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2010.
Crosby, C.T.; de Lange, M.; Stimie, C.M.; van der Stoep, I. A Review of Planning and Design Procedures Applicable
to Small-Scale Farmer Irrigation Projects; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2000; p. 241.
Dahal, B.D.; Sitaula, B.K.; Bajracharya, R.M. Sustainable agricultural intensification for livelihood and food
security in Nepal. Asian J. Water Environ. Pollut. 2007, 5, 112.
Eneyew, A.; Alemu, E.; Ayana, M.; Dananto, M. The role of small scale irrigation in poverty reduction. J. Dev.
Agric. Econ. 2014, 6, 1221.
Food and Agriculture Organization. Irrigation in Africa in Figures. Aqustat Survey2005; FAO: Rome,
Italy, 2005.
Adam, F. Small-Scale Irrigation and Household Food Security: A Case Study from Central Ethiopia; Forum for
Social Studies: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2001.
Bastiaanssen, W.G.M.; Bos, M.G. Irrigation performance indicators based on remotely sensed data: A review
of literature. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 1999, 13, 291311. [CrossRef]
James, B.; Maryam, M.O. Small-scale irrigation and household wages relationship: Proof from Deder district,
Ethiopia. Int. J. Irrig. Water Manag. 2014, 8, 44414451.
Demeku, S.D.; Descheemaeker, K.; Haileslassie, A.; Amede, T. Irrigation water productivity as affected by
water management in a small-scale irrigation scheme in the Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Exp. Agric. 2011, 47,
3955.
Wichelns, D. Achieving water and food security in 2050: Outlook, policies, and investments. Agriculture
2015, 5, 188220. [CrossRef]
Ayele, G.K.; Nicholson, C.F.; Collick, A.S.; Tilahun, S.A.; Steenhuis, T.S. Impact of small-scale irrigation
schemes on household income and the likelihood of poverty in the Lake Tana basin of Ethiopia.
In Proceedings of the Nile Basin Development Challenge Science Meeting, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
910 July 2013; Mekuria, W., Ed.; ILRI: Nairobi, Kenya, 2013.
Kidane, D.; Alemu, B. The effect of upstream land use practices on soil erosion and sedimentation in the
Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Res. J. Agric. Environ. Manag. 2014, 4, 5568.

Agriculture 2016, 6, 27

56.
57.
58.

22 of 22

Ernest, B.; Wuleka, C.K. Assessment of a small scale irrigation scheme on household food security and
leisure in Kokoligu; Ghana. Res. Hum. Soc. Sci. 2013, 3, 1726.
World Bank. Ethiopia: Managing Water Resources to Maximise Sustainable Growth. A World Bank Water
Resources Assistance Strategy for Ethiopia. World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Summery and Statistical Report of 2007 Population and Housing
Census of Ethiopia: Population Size by Age and Sex. CSA: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2007.
2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).